Posted on 10/21/2005 10:26:36 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
ITHACA, N.Y. — Cornell University Interim President Hunter Rawlings III on Friday condemned the teaching of intelligent design as science, calling it "a religious belief masquerading as a secular idea."
"Intelligent design is not valid science," Rawlings told nearly 700 trustees, faculty and other school officials attending Cornell's annual board meeting.
"It has no ability to develop new knowledge through hypothesis testing, modification of the original theory based on experimental results and renewed testing through more refined experiments that yield still more refinements and insights," Rawlings said.
Rawlings, Cornell's president from 1995 to 2003, is now serving as interim president in the wake of this summer's sudden departure of former Cornell president Jeffrey Lehman.
Intelligent design is a theory that says life is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying a higher power must have had a hand. It has been harshly criticized by The National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which have called it repackaged creationism and improper to include in scientific education.
There are brewing disputes involving evolution and intelligent design in at least 20 states and numerous school districts nationwide, including California, New Mexico, Kansas and Pennsylvania. President Bush elevated the controversy in August when he said that schools should teach intelligent design along with evolution.
Many Americans, including some supporters of evolution, believe intelligent design should be taught with evolution. Rawlings said a large minority of Americans — nearly 40 percent — want creationism taught in public schools instead of evolution.
For those reasons, Rawlings said he felt it "imperative" to use his state-of-the-university address — usually a recitation of the school's progress over the last year — to speak out against intelligent design, which he said has "put rational thought under attack."
Perhaps your viewpoint suffers from your severe braincell deficiency. Or a lack of education. Or maybe you are just limited by the poor selection of your parents.
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) says creationism violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
So if IDists want to teach "Intelligent design" as a alternative scientific theory to evolution they'll have deny who that designer is.
What exactly is an "ape-like creature"? Teddy Kennedy?
You are absolute proof of devolution. I bet you don't have many friends.
Once again, a CrEvo thread has degenerated into name calling.
I can sum it up for all of you:
Darwinist: You're an idiot!
Creationist/IDer: No, you are!
Ping.
"Protoscience is a term sometimes used to describe a hypothesis which has not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method, but which is otherwise consistent with existing science or which, where inconsistent, offers reasonable account of the inconsistency".
"While protoscience is often speculative, it is to be distinguished from pseudoscience by its adherence to the scientific method and standard practices of good science, most notably a willingness to be disproven by new evidence (if and when it appears), or supplanted by a more-predictive theory".
Go to wikipedia.org to learn more about scientific theory and how it releates to the different disciplines.
Sorry - I still don't reply to you.
You don't love me any more? Oh, what will I ever do?
"I believe microwaves were used as a testible way to demonstrate the bigbang theory."
As a byproduct through expansion?
I'm not sure how this could prove the theory!
It may show a 'possible' effect of it, but proving the event actually happened seems more like a guess.
Certainly seems normal to me. Cornell, one of the most evil secularist schools in the world, populated by anti-American socialist maggots, would certainly gravitate towards any theory that promotes randomness versus design.
Always wondered how many drunk, drug-addled, depressed students commit suicide at the Falls each year? At least it would get them out of that hell hole!
God-hating evolutionists misrepresent I.D., while scientifically illiterate I.D. proponents misrepresent evolution.
Same thing as every other Crevo thread.
Why aren't Darwinists happier people? Probably because they see no value in human life since they consider it is no more than random DNA thrown together. How sad.
And yet you accept the existence of God without irrefutable proof.
How do you decide which things need proving and which don't?
"So if IDists want to teach "Intelligent design" as a alternative scientific theory to evolution they'll have deny who that designer is."
That's assuming the 'designer' was God..
If I lived during prehistoric caveman times and I 'designed' say, a watch, I might appear to be 'God'. But in the end I would only be a more Intelligent being.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.